That airport is too DARN close!!!

Now that I have your attention I would like to get your feelings and
thoughts on a situation that has arisen by my dad's house.

Recently 2R2 went in not but a few blocks (straight line) from my dad's
house. I think it is great and he and the neighbors have no problems. Keep
in mind the neighborhood was there first in this case.

Recently, they received notice from the airport commission that there are
now a bunch of restrictions on anyone living with in a 2 mile radius. Some
of the items are that if there are trees or structures other than a home
higher than 50 feet they must be taken down and not replaced. No new
structures can be built. Barns with tin roofs that reflect light must be
painted or changed. And on and on.

Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

FWIW a class action law suit is being organized.

I thought this stuff should have been brought out in a notice of proposed
construction to those in the area that would be affected.

"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message
news:6k93c.150469$4o.182969@attbi_s52...
[...]
Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is "well, it's about time an airport got to play the 'I
just showed up, and now you're screwed' card".

Of course, that's not really all that useful, and that's just the evil,
emotional side of me saying that. I don't really believe that's a fair
approach, no more than I believe it's fair for new housing developments to
unfairly restrict airports after they show up.

Now, all that said...

It's true that, just as when other new pieces of the national transportation
infrastructure go in, there are adverse effects on the neighbors, it's not
surprising that there will be adverse effects for the neighbors when an
airport goes in.

I'm sure there was some sort of public process involved in the creation of
this "new" airport (if it's the 2R2 in Indianapolis, it's been there over
two years now), and if the general population felt that the benefits of
having an airport didn't outweigh those adverse effects, it would have been
better to voice those concerns when the airport was being planned. Or
perhaps they did, but the majority of the constituency still felt that the
airport was warranted.

That's pretty much how it goes in a democracy. If every person who was
adversely affected were allowed to prevent something from happening, we'd
never get anything done.

I think that to some extent, it would be reasonable of the neighbors to
expect the airport authority to provide compensation for the changes
required to bring the neighborhood up to standards. Paying for painting
barn roofs, lopping trees, providing for alternate solutions for man-made
structures that need to be removed, that sort of thing.

But! The neighbors need to understand that they need to be willing to
compromise. The airport is there, and was created lawfully, and the safety
of those using the airport needs to be provided for. Frankly, I think most
class action suits are stupid, and the one that sounds like it's brewing in
your dad's neighborhood probably is too. If they decide to take things to
court, the airport will probably decide that since they're going to have to
pay a bunch of lawyers anyway, they might as well refuse to pay for anything
until a judge tells them to, and that judge might well find in favor of the
airport on most or all claims.

Sounds to me like the neighborhood is setting up for the usual situation
where no one but the lawyers come out ahead.

Pete

Very good insight there. I appreciate it. I always got fired up when the
neighbor hoods moved in on the airport and tried to close them down. Then I
was presented with this, an angle I never thought of.

I remember when we found out about the airport. We went looking for the old
2R2 at Speedway and the folks out there told us that 2R2 was moving to
hendricks county. No official notice.

Let's see what others have to say.

Fred

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message
news:6k93c.150469$4o.182969@attbi_s52...
[...]
Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and
airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and
are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is "well, it's about time an airport got to play the 'I
just showed up, and now you're screwed' card".

Of course, that's not really all that useful, and that's just the evil,
emotional side of me saying that. I don't really believe that's a fair
approach, no more than I believe it's fair for new housing developments to
unfairly restrict airports after they show up.

Now, all that said...

It's true that, just as when other new pieces of the national
transportation
infrastructure go in, there are adverse effects on the neighbors, it's not
surprising that there will be adverse effects for the neighbors when an
airport goes in.

I'm sure there was some sort of public process involved in the creation of
this "new" airport (if it's the 2R2 in Indianapolis, it's been there over
two years now), and if the general population felt that the benefits of
having an airport didn't outweigh those adverse effects, it would have
been
better to voice those concerns when the airport was being planned. Or
perhaps they did, but the majority of the constituency still felt that the
airport was warranted.

That's pretty much how it goes in a democracy. If every person who was
adversely affected were allowed to prevent something from happening, we'd
never get anything done.

I think that to some extent, it would be reasonable of the neighbors to
expect the airport authority to provide compensation for the changes
required to bring the neighborhood up to standards. Paying for painting
barn roofs, lopping trees, providing for alternate solutions for man-made
structures that need to be removed, that sort of thing.

But! The neighbors need to understand that they need to be willing to
compromise. The airport is there, and was created lawfully, and the
safety
of those using the airport needs to be provided for. Frankly, I think
most
class action suits are stupid, and the one that sounds like it's brewing
in
your dad's neighborhood probably is too. If they decide to take things to
court, the airport will probably decide that since they're going to have
to
pay a bunch of lawyers anyway, they might as well refuse to pay for
anything
until a judge tells them to, and that judge might well find in favor of
the
airport on most or all claims.

Sounds to me like the neighborhood is setting up for the usual situation
where no one but the lawyers come out ahead.

Pete

Frederick Wilson wrote:
Now that I have your attention I would like to get your feelings and
thoughts on a situation that has arisen by my dad's house.

Recently 2R2 went in not but a few blocks (straight line) from my dad's
house. I think it is great and he and the neighbors have no problems. Keep
in mind the neighborhood was there first in this case.

Recently, they received notice from the airport commission that there are
now a bunch of restrictions on anyone living with in a 2 mile radius. Some
of the items are that if there are trees or structures other than a home
higher than 50 feet they must be taken down and not replaced. No new
structures can be built. Barns with tin roofs that reflect light must be
painted or changed. And on and on.

Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

FWIW a class action law suit is being organized.

I thought this stuff should have been brought out in a notice of proposed
construction to those in the area that would be affected.


http://www.airnav.com/airport/2R2
Nice looking area for an airport. Is your dads house in the picture
Don't look like very many 50 foot any things there.
At least they should PAY to have the trees trimed and paint the barns.

WW

My guess is that the locals were notified at least 5 years ago or more of
the plans to increase the airport and create a new runway.. and they had
their public comment period way back when... and no one really complained.

Now.. with all the other "airport encroachment" happening around the country
with new housing tracts next to existing airports, Cell phone towers popping
up every where.. that the Airport Authority wants to get control first.

And I'm not sure... but if you look at Federal Statutes... you may own the
land.. but not the air above it. Just as in some areas out west.. you may
own the surface land, but not the mineral and water rights under it.

BT

"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message
news:6k93c.150469$4o.182969@attbi_s52...
Now that I have your attention I would like to get your feelings and
thoughts on a situation that has arisen by my dad's house.

Recently 2R2 went in not but a few blocks (straight line) from my dad's
house. I think it is great and he and the neighbors have no problems. Keep
in mind the neighborhood was there first in this case.

Recently, they received notice from the airport commission that there are
now a bunch of restrictions on anyone living with in a 2 mile radius. Some
of the items are that if there are trees or structures other than a home
higher than 50 feet they must be taken down and not replaced. No new
structures can be built. Barns with tin roofs that reflect light must be
painted or changed. And on and on.

Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

FWIW a class action law suit is being organized.

I thought this stuff should have been brought out in a notice of proposed
construction to those in the area that would be affected.

"BTIZ" wrote

you may own the
land.. but not the air above it. Just as in some areas out west.. you may
own the surface land, but not the mineral and water rights under it.

BT

Shoot, you don't have to go out west. Southeast Ohio has the same mineral
rights bit.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.608 / Virus Database: 388 - Release Date: 3/3/2004

Frederick Wilson wrote:

What are your thoughts?

Under similar circumstances, the city of New Haven was successfully sued and
forced to compensate landowners for the reduced use and resale value of their
property. Good luck with your effort.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

mmmm... a chance for a pilot to buy cheap housing near the airport.. now
there is a tactic... build a runway.. so the property value goes down and
pilots who want to live near their aircraft can get cheap housing..

BT

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Frederick Wilson wrote:

What are your thoughts?

Under similar circumstances, the city of New Haven was successfully sued
and
forced to compensate landowners for the reduced use and resale value of
their
property. Good luck with your effort.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
not yield to the tongue.

I live in Indianapolis and have flown over the Hendricks County Airport
for the last couple of years. I remember taking my student x-countries
when they were still putting in the runway. I think the airport is a
great idea... It is the first new airport in Indiana in I don't know how
many years... If I remember correctly there isn't a whole lot of
housing around the airport although Hendricks county is a growing
place. Sorry but if I had to choose between the airport and your dad's
house I'll take the airport...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL
Student-IA

Frederick Wilson wrote:

Now that I have your attention I would like to get your feelings and
thoughts on a situation that has arisen by my dad's house.

Recently 2R2 went in not but a few blocks (straight line) from my dad's
house. I think it is great and he and the neighbors have no problems. Keep
in mind the neighborhood was there first in this case.

Recently, they received notice from the airport commission that there are
now a bunch of restrictions on anyone living with in a 2 mile radius. Some
of the items are that if there are trees or structures other than a home
higher than 50 feet they must be taken down and not replaced. No new
structures can be built. Barns with tin roofs that reflect light must be
painted or changed. And on and on.

Normally the situation is the opposite. The people move in by and airport
and try to close it. This time the airport moved in by the people and are
now mandating controls on peoples rights and space.

What are your thoughts?

FWIW a class action law suit is being organized.

I thought this stuff should have been brought out in a notice of proposed
construction to those in the area that would be affected.

Nice looking area for an airport. Is your dads house in the picture

Nope. he's not in the picture there